3. Changes to Appellate Practice
• E-Filing: Electronic submission of documents
to appellate courts for decision and action
• Texas Appeals Management and E-Filing
System (TAMES): PACER-like online
document submission and access
• E-Briefs: Documents prepared for e-filing in
compliance with court rules
4. Appellate E-Filing
• Not “e-copies”—electronic copies of briefs
tendered for court’s convenience
• True e-filing is sufficient to satisfy deadlines
and join issues, even if follow-up paper
copies are required
5. Why File Electronically?
• Many courts now require it
• To simplify and streamline your practice
• To make the job of deciding your appeal
easier for the court
• Adds some flexibility—a document is
timely if filed by 11:59 p.m. on date due
6. Where Can You E-File?
• 5th Circuit: Mandatory since March 2010
• SCOTX: Mandatory since September 2011
• Among 14 intermediate appellate courts,
mandatory in 1st, 3rd, 7th, and 14th
• Currently permissive in 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th,
9th, 11th & 13th
• 8th, 10th & 12th will permit soon
7. 5th Circuit
E-Filing Rules
• 5th Cir. R. 25.2
• But separate ECF Filing
Standards are key
• Details at 5th Circuit CM/
ECF page: http://
www.ca5.uscourts.gov/cmecf/
8. Texas State
E-Filing Rules
• TRAPs 9.2 & 9.3
• SCOTX has adopted e-filing rules
and approved a template for local
CA rules
• Check court websites for links to
local rules as adopted
• All accessible through http://
www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/
9. How to E-File:
5th Circuit
• 5th Circuit CM/ECF system is
similar to what district and
bankruptcy courts use
• Registration and online
training required
10. How to E-File:
Texas State Courts
• Submit through a third-party
electronic-filing service
provider
• EFSPs offer training for their
own systems
• Can pay fees through EFSP
accounts
11. TAMES
• More documents online: Fourteenth Court
site now publishes all motions, briefs, orders
• But might be at a cost: Courts are debating
asking for a PACER-type fee for each viewing
• This technology would allow searching all
appellate briefs through one portal
• Electronic notices could replace U.S. mail
16. Now, the PDF file is
becoming the “real” brief
10-0182.pfr.pdf
17. But “PDF” is just a file format.
Knowing it’s filed in that format
doesn’t tell you how the judges
will actually see that file.
18. Can’t presume what hardware
the judges and staff are using.
Some judges have a Staff likely has more
dual-monitor setup basic LCD screen
But they might be
using a laptop
More judges are Emergency motions
acquiring iPads on smartphones
19. Can’t presume what software
the judges and staff are using.
Acrobat Pro
Acrobat Other PDF Tools
Desktop web
browser (IE)
iOS apps for PDFs Mobile web browser
20. 2011 Survey: On what screens were court
personnel reading electronic briefs?
21. 2011 Survey: On what screens were court
personnel reading electronic briefs?
10%
2%
17%
71%
At the Office
Big desktop Small desktop
Laptop Tablet/iPad
Smartphone Kindle/e-reader
22. 2011 Survey: On what screens were court
personnel reading electronic briefs?
10% 5%
7%
2% 14%
11%
17% 13%
71%
50%
At the Office At Home / Traveling
Big desktop Small desktop
Laptop Tablet/iPad
Smartphone Kindle/e-reader
28. Bookmarks
The Court order
Appendix A
encourages using
“bookmarks” to
Appendix B Appendix C
help with internal
navigation.
Think about them
like tabs, for your
table of contents.
29. 2011 survey: If you have seen the
bookmark feature, did it make the briefs
easier to use?
Among All Court Staff
9%
91%
Yes No
Graph shows those who answered “Yes” or “No” rather than “Unsure”.
30. 2011 survey: If you have seen the
bookmark feature, did it make the briefs
easier to use?
Among All Court Staff ...Limited to Justices
9%
100%
91%
Yes No
Graph shows those who answered “Yes” or “No” rather than “Unsure”.
32. Texas E-Briefing Rules Fifth Circuit Rules
•e-brief PDFs can include • e-filed briefs cannot
exhibits, cases, etc. include these items
• require that certain • these required items
appendix items be are included in a
included within certain separate “appendix”
briefs
• are fairly lax about •coming “PDF/A”
allowing hyperlinks out to standard will break
other resources external hyperlinks
33. How far should you go?
A “full” e-brief Selecting key
with hyperlinks items to highlight
to everything. with a hyperlink.
34. Justice Wainwright on what to link
“I would hyperlink
everything”
“You never know
what I’m going to
think is important”
Limited by cost or
making filing
cumbersome
0:49
35. Justice Johnson on hyperlinks as emphasis
Some links can
signal importance
The key case, “that
tells me something”
Key part of the
record or diagram
0:37
38. (Almost) Universally Loved
Reporter’s Clerk’s
Record Record
10:1 positive-feedback ratio
Generally Well-Received
PDFs of Key Government Sites
Cases or Statutes (legislative
Roughly 3:1 positive-feedback ratio
40. Slightly Less Positive
Online pleadings Legal treatises
in other cases or law reviews
Roughly 2:1 positive-feedback ratio
(but just as many were still uncertain)
41. Slightly Less Positive
Online pleadings Legal treatises
in other cases or law reviews
Roughly 2:1 positive-feedback ratio
(but just as many were still uncertain)
Equally Divided Views
Unpublished Paid research Free legal
slip services research sites
Nearly 1:1 feedback ratio
43. Proceed With Caution
General websites
(for background)
Roughly 2:1 negative-feedback ratio
44. Proceed With Caution
General websites
(for background)
Roughly 2:1 negative-feedback ratio
Audio/Video
Clips
Evenly divided feedback, but
a majority still had no view
Use good judgment about what
will really help your case
Hinweis der Redaktion
\n
\n
Overview of recent developments brought about by technological advances and necessity\nHow are the appellate bar and courts adapting their work to mandatory e-filing?\nSome practical “how to” points along the way\n
\n
Appellate e-filing has become a fact of life in both federal and state practice. If you handle appeals at all, you need to get up to speed on it now.\n\nRecords have gone or are all-electronic too.\n\nAnyone aspiring to a paperless practice should get on board. Simplifies by reducing paper and allowing you to serve opposing counsel electronically.\n\nAbility to hyperlink to record and authorities is big benefit. Don will talk about that in more detail.\n\nPotential problem created by e-filing late: service rule hasn’t caught up.\n
Mandatory in civil cases\n\n\n
\n
\n
Counsel or designee must register and complete training modules that simulate e-filing\n\nMust have on file a form for entry of appearance in that specific case\n\nInterface is a little clunky because it’s build on an older platform, but it’s functional, and filing is free\n\nFlaw in this system is that paper copies are still required\n
ProDoc is just one vendor. CaseFileXPress is another.\n\nFrom user side, main issue with this system is fees. Can be expensive.\n\nMovement away from requiring paper copies.\n\n\n
Rollout in process now\n
14th Court’s implementation of TAMES\n\nNotice the links to the right--downloadable PDFs\n\nTo be deployed in 1st CA this month and SCOTX next month.\n
14th Court’s implementation of TAMES\n\nNotice the links to the right--downloadable PDFs\n\nTo be deployed in 1st CA this month and SCOTX next month.\n
Under old system, viewing documents was not possible.\n\nNow, rather than just “letter filed,” you can pull up the letter and see what it’s about. Useful in viewing correspondence from clerks, court reporters, etc.\n\nTransition to Don re e-briefs\n
\n
\n
Standard supermarket question...\nWhen advanced was the CD platters --> coasters like AOL\n
The number of paper copies --> going down\n-- just a handful in SCOTX\n-- and ZERO for MFRs, if that tells you anything\n\nSome COAs down to ZERO for all briefs (Eastland Court, for example)\n
Think about it from the reader's point of view\n\nIn all writing, that's basic courtesy \nHere, the reader is the one who decides if you win or lose\n \n
Judges and staff are people, too --> same variety of screens you might use\n\nLaptops are convenient\niPads are increasingly common\n
\n
The judges do have full Acrobat -- might not at home // staff & clerks not at all\n\nWhat if open in WEB BROWSER --> then have PDF there experience\n\nThen there are iPad/iOS apps --> variety of them, each a little different\n\nAnd iOS web browser, with its somewhat quirky tabs\n
\n
Survey from 2011\n\nWas before ANY were provided with iPads, etc. Even using personal devices, still had a wide variety of screens on which judges might see your brief or your motion.\n\nNote difference: In office, big screen. Out of office, sliced to smaller screen.\n
Survey from 2011\n\nWas before ANY were provided with iPads, etc. Even using personal devices, still had a wide variety of screens on which judges might see your brief or your motion.\n\nNote difference: In office, big screen. Out of office, sliced to smaller screen.\n
\n
\n
Spreading to federal courts, too\n\nJudge Nuffer (UT) - 58% use it\n\n\n
\n
Makes a big difference in how easy it is to read on the screen\n==> retina display => even BIGGER difference\n\nThe obvious win though is SEARCH\nMakes up for lots of other flaws\n
\n
\n
Middle column here is how it looks in Acrobat\n\nLooks a little different in each app -- judges do rely on it // am told some have chosen iPad apps based on how this looks\n\nYou control length / nesting\n
\n
\n
Very different world - state and federal\n\n\n
This is a current debate among appellate lawyers -- and judges.\n\nWe’re learning as the technology changes. I have my own strong views --> but they are still loosely held as I learn what really works.\n
\n
\n
\n
Data taken from 2011 survey that Blake Hawthorne and I put together for Texas appellate judges\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Each device/app is a little different about how -- they all have this in there somewhere. Some show it by default. Acrobat requires you to change a setting to show it. Can always use keyboard shortcut.\n\nKNOW that the judge reading will figure it out ONCE and then fix their software.\n